Held on 1st October 2025 (Wednesday) at 5:30 p.m. at the ITAT Bar Association Library, Mumbai

The ITAT Bar Association, Mumbai, organized a felicitation function in honour of Hon’ble Justice Ms. Arati Sathe on her elevation as Judge of the Bombay High Court.

Mr. K. Gopal, President of the ITAT Bar Association, warmly welcomed Hon’ble Justice Ms. Arati Sathe, Hon’ble President Justice C. V. Bhadang, Hon’ble Vice-President Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’ble Members, and several distinguished past presidents and senior members of the Bar including Shri S. E. Dastur, Dr. K. Shivaram, Shri Porus Kaka, Shri Subash Shetty, Mrs. Aarti Vissanji, Shri Phiroz Andhyarujina, Shri Percy Pardiwala, and Shri Jahangir Mistry, all Senior Advocates, as well as other esteemed members of the Association.

Mr. Gopal briefly recalled the remarkable contribution of Justice Arati Sathe as an active member of the Managing Committee for more than a decade and expressed pride on behalf of the entire tax fraternity on her elevation.

In his address, Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior Advocate and Past President of the ITAT Bar Association, observed that it was indeed a historic day for the Association—the first time a long-serving and active member of the ITAT Bar was being felicitated on her elevation to the High Court Bench.

He highlighted that Justice Arati Sathe has been associated with the Bar for over 23 years, serving on the Managing Committee for more than 9 years, and contributing regularly to the Annual Digest published by the Association since 2012.

Dr. Shivaram fondly recalled the 2016 publication, “Interpretation of Taxing Statutes – Frequently Asked Questions,” brought out in memory of Hon’ble Justice S. H. Kapadia, former Chief Justice of India, in which then Advocate Arati Sathe authored a scholarly article on “Principles of Natural Justice.” The article was reviewed by Shri S. N. Inamdar, Senior Advocate, who, in his written note, described it as “a well-researched and very well-written article — I have nothing to add.” Dr. Shivaram recommended that young professionals read this piece to appreciate its academic depth.

He also noted that Justice Sathe is the daughter of Shri Arun Sathe, Senior Advocate, and Past President of the ITAT Bar Association, who played a pivotal role in securing additional space for the Association, thereby facilitating the creation of five new courtrooms for the ITAT.

Dr. Shivaram observed that the tax fraternity takes pride in seeing several of its members adorn the higher judiciary — including Hon’ble Justices Rajesh Bindal and Ujjal Bhuyan (now Judges of the Supreme Court), Hon’ble Justice Dr. Anita Sumanth (Madras High Court), Hon’ble Justice Piyush Agrawal (Allahabad High Court), Hon’ble Justice Jitendra Jain (Bombay High Court), and now Hon’ble Justice Arati Sathe (Bombay High Court). He expressed confidence that many among them would go on to serve at the Apex Court in the years ahead.

Referring to a Times of India report dated 28th September 2025, which mentioned 330 vacancies across 25 High Courts, Dr. Shivaram recalled that during the Members’ Conference held in Goa, a proposal was made before the Hon’ble Law Minister to institutionalize the process of elevating deserving Judicial Members of the ITAT to the High Courts. The Hon’ble Minister had appreciated this suggestion. Subsequently, the AIFTP made formal representations to the Hon’ble Law Minister and the Hon’ble President of the ITAT. Dr. Shivaram urged Mr. K. Gopal, President of the ITAT Bar Association, to actively pursue this initiative further.

He concluded by extending on behalf of the Association heartiest congratulations and best wishes to Hon’ble Justice Arati Sathe, expressing hope to soon see many landmark judgments authored by her.

In her address, Hon’ble Justice Arati Sathe expressed her heartfelt gratitude to Hon’ble President Justice C. V. Bhadang, Hon’ble Vice-President Shri Saktijit Dey, and all Hon’ble Members for their encouragement and presence. She also conveyed her sincere thanks to all members of the Managing Committee and made special mention of Mr. Percy Pardiwala, Senior Advocate, her senior, for his constant guidance, and Dr. K. Shivaram, Senior Advocate, for his motivational writings that inspire her to craft well-reasoned judgments in her judicial role.

Mr. Nitesh Joshi, Vice-President, proposed a vote of thanks, marking the close of what was truly a memorable evening for the ITAT Bar Association, Mumbai.

Select Landmark Cases Argued by Hon’ble Justice Ms. Arati Sathe (as Counsel

S. 11 – Charitable and Religious Trusts:

Late filing of documents – Exemption under section 11 cannot be denied where the trust, registered under section 12A, filed the documents belatedly but the registration was valid for the relevant period.

CIT-II, Thane v. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Iron & Steel Market Committee [2015] 232 Taxman 344 / 378 ITR 103 (Bom)(HC)

S. 80G – Deduction:

On amalgamation of two trusts, approval under section 80G cannot be denied merely due to change in name, provided the charitable objects remain unchanged and conditions continue to be met.

DIT (E), Mumbai v. Ramhari Foundation [2015] 53 taxmann.com 163 (Bom)(HC)

S. 144B – Faceless Assessment:

Jurisdictional Assessing Officer cannot issue notice under section 148A(b) as such notices must be issued through the faceless system.

Everest Kanto Cylinder Ltd. v. ACIT [2024] 300 Taxman 190 / 473 ITR 148 (Bom)(HC)

S. 147 – Reassessment:

Reopening based solely on audit objection without independent satisfaction by the AO is invalid.
CIT-12 v. DRM Enterprises [2015] 230 Taxman 61 (Bom)(HC)

 S.147 – Reassessment (Cash Credits):

Reassessment and penalty proceedings quashed as invalid.

Ajay Ajit Tanna v. UOI [2023] 151 taxmann.com 324 / 454 ITR 754 (Bom)(HC)

 

 S. 220 – Recovery of Tax:

Order on stay of demand must contain reasons and clearly state grounds for grant or refusal.
Tata Toyo Radiators (P.) Ltd. v. UOI [2012] 209 Taxman 106 (Mag.) / 250 CTR 11 (Bom)(HC

 

S. 260A – Appeal – Jurisdictional Question:

A question of law involving jurisdiction can be raised before the High Court even if not raised before the Tribunal.

Ventura Textiles Ltd. v. CIT [2020] 426 ITR 478 / 315 CTR 729 / 190 DTR 165 / 274 Taxman 144 (Bom)(HC)

 

S. 271(1)(c) – Penalty:

Where deduction claimed was disallowed under section 43B without concealment or false statement, penalty under section 271(1)(c) not justified.

Carona Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2025] 176 taxmann.com 983 (Bom)(HC)

 

For ITAT Bar Association, Mumbai

Mr. Paras Savla & Mr. Rahul Hakani

 

Hon. Secretaries

25-10-2025

---